On Santhara/Sallekhana) of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Decoding the Judgment (on Santhara/Sallekhana) of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7414/2006 (PIL) Nikhil Soni V/s Union of India & ors. Date of Order:- 10.8.2015) Prof C Devakumar (Jain), M.Sc., Ph. D., FNAAS Former Assistant Director General, ICAR, New Delhi [email protected] (Mob. 08010509335) Sadar Jai Jinendra! (Acknowledgements: The author is extremely indebted to Shri R P Jain Saheb, New Delhi for his contant encouragement and valuable guidance from time to time. He also immensely benefitted by the inputs obtained through social and internet media. He is grateful to each one of them.) Introduction: The Jain religion is possibly the oldest living religion being practised all over the world. Literature in Tamil (the most oldest classical language), Sankrit, Kannada and Marathi, Gujarati etc. is also plenty. The epigraphic records in Indian landscape are testimony to Jain practices including Santhara/Sallekhana which is hailed as Vadakkiruththal (meditating facing north) in ancient Tamil literature. The PIL has been influenced by an incident of alleged glorification of Santhara-led death in Jaipur in 2006. The centuries-old practice which was not banned even during Muslim and British rules has received this jolt by this judgment in the Independent India. It must be stated that the battery of leaned advocates for respondents tried very hard to plead for the dismissal of the PIL. The State of Rajasthan must be commended for supporting this practice before the Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble Court has cited many instances such as sati, human sacrifice, producing more children as a part of religious practices that came up for adjudication and judgments including those adjudicated by the Constitution benches to drive home the point that making an exception to this practice under the law of the land is not possible. The Hon’ble Judges have found merit in the PIL on the grounds that Santhara/Sallekhana is not an essential part of the Jain religion and that the respondents have failed to produce evidences that this practice can be saved under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. What are the available options other than the legal course to save this practice? 1. The definition and scope of Santhara/Sallekhana must be clearly enunciated. Neither fast unto death nor prolonged fasting are the only options under this practice. Imagine a situation: the plane is going to explode. As an ardent Jain, the passenger instantly takes this vow knowing well that there is no chance of survival. There are safety exit options in case the aspirant finds himself/ herself ill-equipped to pursue it further. The guidance of the Guru and self-assessment are the key. Samadhi maran, ichcha mrutyu and Prayopavesa are Hindu practices similar to Santhara/Sallekhana. The respondents have listed examples of Vinoba Bhave, Ramakrishna Paramahans and so this practice is not exclusive to Jains. These facts must be brought out before the Hon’ble Court. 2. This is an opportunity for Jain samaj to get united to take stock of the situation and become pro- active. The various Jain sangh can volunteer to get accredited under International Organization for Standardization (www.iso.org/). JAINA can help us in this matter. The standard Operating Procedures for Santhara and Sallekhana can be developed and presented before the Judiciary and the Government. 3. The historical evidences (scriptural, epigraphic and historical records of this practice) before and after Independence may be compiled on priority. Scholarly publication on Santhara/Sallekhana involving international scholars may be brought out. Decoding the Judgment: Para Key points in the Judgment Remarks no. In the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the 1 Constitution of India in public interest, the petitioner has prayed for directions to the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan to treat “Santhara” or “Sallekhana” as illegal and punishable under the law of the land and that the instances given in the pleadings, be investigated and subjected to suitable prosecution of which, the abetment be also treated as criminal act. 2 The petitioner’s contentions: The vow of Santhara/sallekhana does not give moksha at the end of this life. It The “Santhara” is a practice prevalent in strengthens the resolve of the Sadhak to Shvetambara group of Jain community. It is a carry forward his/her determination to the religious fast unto death on the pretext that next birth. when all purpose of life have been served, or when the body is unable to serve any purpose of The arguments against other contentions are life, the Santhara will obtain “Moksha”. The elaborated in the subsequent paragraphs. Santhara is a religious thought, which has no place under the law of the land. The right to freedom of religion under Article-25 in Part-III- Fundamental Rights, is subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, which includes Article 21. A practice, however, ancient it may be to a particular religion, cannot be allowed to violate the right to life of an individual. 3 The petitioner’s contentions: The distinctive definitions of suicide and Santhara/sallekhana must be stated at this A voluntary fast unto death is an act of self- point. This will form the basis of subsequent destruction, which amounts to “suicide”, which is arguments. a criminal offence and is punishable under section 309 IPC and under section 306 IPC. The definition and scope of “Suicide” means an intentional killing of Santhara/Sallekhana must be clearly oneself. enunciated. Neither fast unto death nor prolonged fasting are the only options under this practice. Imagine a situation: the plane is going to explode. As an ardent Jain, the passenger instantly takes this vow knowing well that there is no chance of survival. It is not necessary that this vow would not have safety option of opting out in case the aspirant finds himself/ herself ill-equipped to pursue it further. The guidance of the Guru and self-assessment 4 The petitioner’s contentions: A person adopting The examples cited by the petitioner were the Santhara is helped by the entire community however denied by the respondents (vide in designing it ceremoniously. The house of such Annexure 1 and Para 12 of the judgment) This possibly influenced the Hon’ble Judges person becomes a place of pilgrimage. The entire to rule, “There is no evidence or material to act is considered to be an act of courage and show that the Santhara or Sallekhana has rational thinking on the pretext that soul never been practiced by the persons professing dies. They glorify the act and its eventuality. The Jain religion even prior to or after the petitioner has given several examples of the promulgation of the Constitution of India to Santhara to show that it is not an age old and protect such right under Article 25 of the forgotten practice and that it is being practiced Constitution of India” (Para 42). even now regularly. Some of the instances of Santhara have been given in paragraph 4 of the writ petition as follows:-“(i) Sohan Kumariji administered the vow of SANTHARA, on 7th Oct.1993. Her fast lasted for 20 days. (ii) Premji Hirji Gala in Nov.1994. Fasted until 212 days. (iii) Jethalal Zaveri fast lasted for 42 days in 1997. (iv) Nirmalananda (illustration taken from the Deccan Herald Jan.10, 1997) the fast lasted for three weeks. (v) Haraklalji Bhairulalji Mehta in Oct.2000 Ahmedabad. The fast lasted for 23 days. He hails from Mahendra Garh near Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (vi) Sadhvi Nirbhay Vani. Fasted for 20 days, 24th May 2003 at Jain Temple Gohana Town and Muni Matiryaji Maharaj, Fasted for 35 days belonging to Terapanth Dharam Sangh at Udasar near Bikaner, Rajasthan.” 5 An additional affidavit brought on record the The Jain samaj must introspect about this adoption of the Santhara by late Vimla Jain, who particular case. Without prejudice and was given the status of Sadhvi and her fast unto malice, prima facie, such allegations will death was widely publicized by her family contradict the spirit of Santhara. This has in members with her photographs in the obituary columns for having adopted the Santhara. The fact caused this PIL. decorated photograph of her dead body was also published in the newspaper. The newspaper report publicized the religious meetings and glorified the act of late Vimla Devi raising the status of the family in the community. 6. Notices of the petition were issued on 6-7 22.9.2006 also calling upon the Superintendent of Police (East), Jaipur to do the needful if the petitioner approaches him with a complaint. On the next date fixed on 21.12.2006, a large number of individuals sought intervention, to which an objection was taken by the petitioner that they are not true representatives of the Jain community. The Court observed that if all the sundry are formally impleaded as respondents and allowed to file their respective replies, it would make the exercise difficult and cumbersome and thus, allowed intervention by bodies/associations and they were added as respondents and individual interveners to be heard. 7. On 2.5.2007, the Court permitted Shri Man Singh Mehta to intervene in the matter as an individual as others were also allowed to intervene. 8 The matter has, thereafter, been on voyage on So for 7 years, our community outside the cause list from 6.8.2008 for seven years until Rajasthan was oblivious to this PIL. The it was heard on 23.4.2015. The petitioner is lesson learnt is to strengthen our advocating modern thought and thinking, and communication channels.